Spare thoughts which wouldn’t fit into the previous post, in no particular order:
Differences between Tariff Reform and the Independent Group
1. Difference #1
That in many ways the 1906 election has already happened. The 2017 General Election was the one in which the Conservatives lost their significant majority. The difference may be explained by Balfour delaying the inevitable in 1906, having previously been elected in 1900. The 2017 election happened fairly soon after the Brexit referendum and when May was still fairly new in the role. As such, the Conservative fallout which happened under Tariff Reform before 1906 and then in the House of Lords has happened with the Conservatives in office rather than in Opposition. Essentially, the timings are just a bit different. Where the timing parallels lie will be seen whenever we do have another General Election. It may well be (in fact, it’s probable) that if the Conservatives leave office they’ll spend ten years or so out of power, sorting out their differences as they did after 1906.
2. Difference #2
That the Liberals were more along the way to reforming, winning the 1906 election in a landslide. Today’s Liberals, and their Independent Group counterparts, are somewhat more nascent in their preparations. The Independent Group in particular is new and not even party-aligned yet. This may be an argument for delaying the General Election until they are slightly more established if they are to succeed. It may also indicate that they are headed for slightly different prospects due to a less secure base, as the SDP found in 1981.
3. Difference #3
That in 1906 there was no new party, unless you count the already-split Liberals and Liberal Unionists, which was fairly established by that point. Changes of party on that occasion happened between the Liberals, the Liberal Unionists and the Conservatives rather than forming a new group like this. The Independent Group’s role will become clearer if and when they finalise their party alignment. Of course, it could turn out that they choose a standard alignment like that of the Liberal Unionists and cease to sound quite so unusual.
On criticisms of the Independent Group I’ve seen:
1. They should have stayed in place
The basis of this one comes from the norm that access to the levers of power comes from being inside political parties. Whilst this is largely true – and the ERG have certainly used it to great effect – neither May nor Corbyn seems movable and the MPs who have left were among those who were expected to follow suit to the party whip whilst the leader dealt with more problematic wings of the party, rather than having any right to be listened to themselves. Like the quiet child of the family overlooked for the tantrums of their sibling, these MPs needed to make a fuss of their own to hold equal weight in the argument. They just weren’t ever going to be listened to otherwise. The normal logic of being able to influence the leader of a party through being part of it just doesn’t hold true here.
2. They should hold by-elections
Again, this is a fairly standard reaction. If this was one or two MPs and they represented an extremist view, I might agree. However, whatever our opinions on their politics, there are 11 of them now – 12 resignations including the new Labour resignation today who has chosen not to join them. That’s bigger than May’s working majority. Holding a by-election in 12 seats wouldn’t just take time we don’t have, it would effectively constitute a General Election. With resignations on this scale, a General Election should be held if this was going to be the route taken (which I think is probably the wrong course for the moment – changing May out for Corbyn is really changing apples for apples in Brexit terms).
More than this, holding by-elections misses the point of why this split is important. It’s Parliament finally figuring out how to talk about Brexit under a minority government. Holding by-elections would, due to funding, branding and organisational advantages on the side of the larger parties, be unfair assessments of these MPs and totally undermine this progress in rebalancing Parliament’s ability to debate Brexit. Yes MPs may not represent their seats, but since British politics was still reeling from what Brexit even meant at the last General Election (there’s even a whole podcast called Brexit Means… trying to answer that question), none of these MPs really represent the Brexit views in their seats anyway. Give it some time. It’s unusual for an Independent Group to form, but standard practice for MPs to change parties in parliamentary politics. It’s what represents the shift in opinion outside of General Elections.
3. They haven’t come to power with a manifesto
Another understandable norm. Normally, when a group forms, they have a manifesto for the various departments and issues of government. However, Brexit is a special case: it is the issue of government. A manifesto is necessary when the issues discussed in Parliament are more broad, but there is only one issue at the moment; it just seeps into everything. In this case, and for the moment, the existence of the Independent Group is enough of a manifesto in itself. It’s only very early days at the moment – not even a week has gone by. If the group does, in the following days, weeks and months, form a new party (assuming they don’t join the Lib Dems in a new coalition), that will be the point when a larger manifesto is needed. For now, they aren’t a party, they’re independent MPs with a common interest. A broader manifesto will become appropriate when their situation is more clear.
4. They should be snuffed out by May holding a General Election to force No Deal(?).
Have to say, given the disaster that the 1906 General Election turned out to be for a similarly though less fragile Conservative Party, I’d be careful with this advice. The Independent Group haven’t fully finalised their situation yet, but by the time a General Election could be held there’s every chance they’d represent a formidable opposition. Last time an election was called in a situation like this, it was a disaster for the Conservative Party.
Global Retrospective 